Arbonne is one of the main companies in the world when it comes to beauty and skin care. Its skin care line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne skin care products are manufactured in Switzerland….

shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…

…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…

Had you heard that the AARP is into Social Networking now. Seems myspace and facebook were targeted for twenty somethings, so now us seniors can get out there and chat with the best of them.

These new low rates are killing me, I wish my credit wasn’t messed up so I could lock in the low rates.

The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August

This Mortgage fiasco is out of control and our gov’t better do something serious to help people out or the housing market will crush this economy.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

You assert it’s like an IRA and the risks are small but I suspect you haven’t read any of the aritcles that describe why, when the baby boomers begin to retire in big numbers, the risks for IRAs may grow to a much larger size.

Show me a prospectus. Show me exactly what the system will be. I’m familiar with mutual funds, I know that some funds have stopped accepting new accounts because the fund would become too large to manage if allowed to grow unchecked. The personal accounts would be, in aggregate, the largest mutual fund ever by a large margin. How are the managers possibly going to be able to manage such a huge fund? When a fund owns more than 5% of the equity in any one stock the rules get tighter, but even neglecting that do you not see that if the personal account fund has $100,000,000 invested in Microsoft it isn’t simple to sell those shares and move the investment to IBM? Show me a prospectus. The prospecti (correct plural?) I do see have several types of risk defined and give fair warning of what those risks mean for the fund being described. Show me a prospectus.

Any investor, upon being told that “Although there would be some risk, it would be minimal” should ask to see the prospectus. In the present case there is no way you can show me the prospectus because the backers of this scheme refuse to provide the details. They cant’ get away with that in the real market but if they could the wise investor would simply say “no prospectus, no sale.” Why on earth wold anyone tell American workers that they should invest in a fund that is not even described in any sort of detail, for which there is no prospectus at all? That alone is enough reason to reject the scheme. It’s outright deception to claim that the scheme has to be approved before it can be described. It would be absolutely idiotic to invest in that way: first commit the money, then find out what is to be done with it.

If it makes you happy I’ll say “Oh, goody: minimal risk.” Until I see something with substance all you will get is “Oh, goody.” I’ll not invest a dime.

You also lie about the present system, which is paying me every month (I’m 67.) If the present system is at risk it is only at risk if sleazy right-wing politicians intentionally destroy it, perhaps by trying to somehow not pay off the bonds held by Social Security when they are presented for payment. I do agree that the long-term projections should be heeded and that corrective measures be taken if and when required, but that’s not reason to completely (or partially) destroy the existing system and switch to a different system that is as yet not described in enough detail to be subjected to analysis.

As a matter of fact measures were taken to insure solvency: that’s why we have the surplus, to avoid a catastrophe when the bulk of the baby boomers retire. Rather than acknowledge that fact and the widom shwon when the system was changed to build the surplus the personal account scheme backers (Bush at the fore) lie about the surplus. It isn’t the fault of Social Security at all that the federal budget isn’t balanced. As long as it is unbalanced why is it not the safest possible investment to buy treasury bonds, even special issue bonds that can’t be traded? Whatever your answer, the flaw, if you claim a flaw, is not in Social Security but in the federal government. If the federal government is so flawed that it will not honor those obligations then the first order of business ought to be to correct that flaw in the federal government. Making the federal financial situation worse by implementing personal accounts is exactly the wrong direction to go, isn’t it?

And what I keep tying to tell you is your fear is unfounded. Even if absolutely nothing is done, and conditions do not change between now and 2052 you will still be able to collect 73% of your Social Security benefits.

The system is not facing bankruptcy but a shortfall. The question is how to make up for it. Most analysts agree that an overhaul would be way too costly. If you are worried about your money going up in smoke, wait until Pres Bush’s goes into implementation.

Let’s be realistic: What are the chances Cato’s plan is taken into consideration? (Again, how many times has Pres Bush taken advise from outsiders?) I don’t think is worth spending time examinig it, as it will not be implemented.

I would prefer greater control of my money so that I can make plans for my retirement. I welcome the responsibility.
Comment by Chase — August 3, 2006 @ 2:10 pm

Catch #2: Under Pres Bush’s plan it will still not be your money (keep in mind it’s his plan he is pushing, not Cato’s). It will have many restrictions to keep you from making mistakes and ending up in the government’s care.

I know you think you will always make the right decisions. I used to think so too. Time has proven me wrong. It’s been a very humbling experience.

Maybe privatisation is right, maybe not. I don’t know for sure. What I do know is that Pres Bush’s plan is not the way to go and that other attempts at privatisation have a less than stellar record.

This has nothing to do with Bush, as far as I’m concerned. This is about the failings of the current system and how the with the declining ratio of workers to beneficiaries makes the system fundamentally flawed.

Something must be done, and I would prefer greater control of my money so that I can make plans for my retirement. I welcome the responsibility.

Cut the FICA tax by 75%.